Object permanence in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and children (Homo sapiens).

Juvenile and adult orangutans (n?=?5; Pongo pygmaeus), chimpanzees (n?=?7; Pan troglodytes), and 19- and 26-month-old children (n?=?24; Homo sapiens) received visible and invisible displacements. Three containers were presented forming a straight line, and a small box was used to displace a reward under them. Subjects received 3 types of displacement: single (the box visited 1 container), double adjacent (the box visited 2 contiguous containers), and double nonadjacent (the box visited 2 noncontiguous containers). All species performed at comparable levels, solving all problems except the invisible nonadjacent displacements. Visible displacements were easier than invisible, and single were easier than double displacements. In a 2nd experiment, subjects saw the baiting of either 2 adjacent or 2 nonadjacent containers with no displacements. All species selected the empty container more often when the baited containers were nonadjacent than when they were adjacent. It is hypothesized that a response bias and inhibition problem were responsible for the poor performance in nonadjacent displacements. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Inferences About the Location of Food in the Great Apes (Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, Gorilla gorilla, and Pongo pygmaeus).

Bonobos (Pan paniscus; n = 4), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes; n = 12), gorillas (Gorilla gorilla; n = 8), and orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus; n = 6) were presented with 2 cups (1 baited) and given visual or auditory information about their contents. Visual information consisted of letting subjects look inside the cups. Auditory information consisted of shaking the cup so that the baited cup produced a rattling sound. Subjects correctly selected the baited cup both when they saw or heard the food. Nine individuals were above chance in both visual and auditory conditions. More important, subjects as a group selected the baited cup when only the empty cup was either shown or shaken, which means that subjects chose correctly without having seen or heard the food (i.e., inference by exclusion). Control tests showed that subjects were not more attracted to noisy cups, avoided shaken noiseless cups, or learned to use auditory information as a cue during the study. It is concluded that subjects understood that the food caused the noise, not simply that the noise was associated with the food. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Discrete quantity judgments in the great apes (Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pygmaeus): The effect of presenting whole sets versus item-by-item.

The authors examined quantity-based judgments for up to 10 items for simultaneous and sequential whole sets as well as for sequentially dropped items in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), gorillas (Gorilla gorilla), bonobos (Pan paniscus), and orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). In Experiment 1, subjects had to choose the larger of 2 quantities presented in 2 separate dishes either simultaneously or 1 dish after the other. Representatives of all species were capable of selecting the larger of 2 quantities in both conditions, even when the quantities were large and the numerical distance between them was small. In Experiment 2, subjects had to select between the same food quantities sequentially dropped into 2 opaque cups so that none of the quantities were ever viewed as a whole. The authors found some evidence (albeit weaker) that subjects were able to select the larger quantity of items. Furthermore, the authors found no performance breakdown with the inclusion of certain quantities. Instead, the ratio between quantities was the best performance predictor. The authors conclude that quantity-based judgments rely on an analogical system, not a discrete object file model or perceptual estimation mechanism, such as subitizing. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Great apes' (Pan troglodytes, Pan paniscus, Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pygmaeus) understanding of tool functional properties after limited experience.

Primates' understanding of tool functionality has been investigated extensively using a paradigm in which subjects are presented with a tool that they must use to obtain an out-of-reach reward. After being given experience on an initial problem, monkeys can transfer their skill to tools of different shapes while ignoring irrelevant tool changes (e.g., color). In contrast, monkeys without initial training perform poorly on the same tasks. Compared to most monkeys, great apes show a clear propensity for tool using and may not require as much experience to succeed on tool functionality tasks. We investigated this question by presenting 171 apes (Pan troglodytes, Pan paniscus, Gorilla gorilla, and Pongo pygmaeus) with several tool-use problems without giving them initial training or familiarizing them with the test materials. Apes succeeded without experience, but only on problems based on basic properties such as the reward being supported by an object. However, only minimal experience was sufficient to allow them to quickly improve their performance on more complex problems in which the reward was not in contact with the tool. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

How the great apes (Pan troglodytes, Pongo pygmaeus, Pan paniscus, Gorilla gorilla) perform on the reversed reward contingency task II: Transfer to new quantities, long-term retention, and the impact of quantity ratios.

We tested 6 chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), 3 orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), 4 bonobos (Pan paniscus), and 2 gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) in the reversed reward contingency task. Individuals were presented with pairs of quantities ranging between 0 and 6 food items. Prior to testing, some experienced apes had solved this task using 2 quantities while others were totally na?ve. Experienced apes transferred their ability to multiple-novel pairs after 6 to 19 months had elapsed since their initial testing. Two out of 6 na?ve apes (1 chimpanzee, 1 bonobo) solved the task--a proportion comparable to that of a previous study using 2 pairs of quantities. Their acquisition speed was also comparable to the successful subjects from that study. The ratio between quantities explained a large portion of the variance but affected na?ve and experienced individuals differently. For smaller ratios, na?ve individuals were well below 50% correct and experienced ones were well above 50%, yet both groups tended to converge toward 50% for larger ratios. Thus, some apes require no procedural modifications to overcome their strong bias for selecting the larger of 2 quantities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Piagetian Liquid Conservation in the Great Apes (Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, and Pongo pygmaeus).

An understanding of Piagetian liquid conservation was investigated in 4 bonobos (Pan paniscus), 5 chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and 5 orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). The apes were tested in the ability to track the larger of 2 quantities of juice that had undergone various kinds of transformations. The accuracy of the apes' judgment depended on the shape or number of containers into which the larger quantity was transferred. The apes made their choice mainly on the basis of visual estimation but showed modest success when the quantities were occluded. The results suggest that the apes rely to a greater extent on visual information, although they might have some appreciation of the constancy of liquid quantities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

How the great apes (Pan troglodytes, Pongo pygmaeus, Pan paniscus, and Gorilla gorilla) perform on the reversed contingency task: The effects of food quantity and food visibility.

S. T. Boysen and G. G. Berntson (1995) found that chimpanzees performed poorly on a reversed contingency task in which they had to point to the smaller of 2 food quantities to acquire the larger quantity. The authors compared the performance of 4 great ape species (Pan troglodytes, Pongo pygmaeus, Pan paniscus, and Gorilla gorilla) on the reversed contingency task while manipulating food quantity (0-4 or 1-4) and food visibility (visible pairs or covered pairs). Results showed no systematic species differences but large individual differences. Some individuals of each species were able to solve the reversed contingency task. Both quantity and visibility of the food items had a significant effect on performance. Subjects performed better when the disparity between quantities was smaller and the quantities were not directly visible. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Do Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and 2-Year-Old Children (Homo sapiens) Understand Double Invisible Displacement?

Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and young children (Homo sapiens) have difficulty with double invisible displacements in which an object is hidden in two nonadjacent boxes in a linear array. Experiment 1 eliminated the possibility that chimpanzees' previous poor performance was due to the hiding direction of the displacement device. As in Call (2001), subjects failed double nonadjacent displacements, showing a tendency to select adjacent boxes. In Experiments 2 and 3, chimpanzees and 24-month-old children were tested on a new adaptation of the task in which four hiding boxes were presented in a diamond-shaped array on a vertical plane. Both species performed above chance on double invisible displacements using this format, suggesting that previous poor performance was due to a response bias or inhibition problem rather than a fundamental limitation in representational capacity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Tracking and inferring spatial rotation by children and great apes.

Finding hidden objects in space is a fundamental ability that has received considerable research attention from both a developmental and a comparative perspective. Tracking the rotational displacements of containers and hidden objects is a particularly challenging task. This study investigated the ability of 3-, 5-, 7-, and 9-year-old children and great apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans) to (a) visually track rotational displacements of a baited container on a platform and (b) infer its displacements by using the changes of position or orientation of 3 landmarks: an object on a container, the color of the containers, and the color of the platform on which the containers rested. Great apes and 5-year-old and older children successfully tracked visible rotations, but only children were able to infer the location of a correct cup (with the help of landmarks) after invisible rotations. The ability to use landmarks changed with age so that younger children solved this task only with the most explicit marker on the baited container, whereas older children, particularly 9-year-olds, were able to use landmark orientation to infer correct locations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Referential Understanding of Videos in Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), and Children (Homo sapiens).

Performance on identical search tasks based on cues directly perceived or indirectly perceived through video were compared among a group of 4 adult chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), a group of 2 adult orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), and a group of 36 children (between 2 and 3 years of age). Children comprehended directly perceived cues but had difficulty with video cues. In contrast, chimpanzees and 1 orangutan were successful in using video to guide their search for a hidden object. Two follow-up studies with 3-year-old children demonstrated the importance of more distinct perceptual and verbal cues in aiding children's understanding of video as referring to real-world events. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Use of experimenter-given cues during object-choice tasks by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), an orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus), and human infants (Homo sapiens).

In a series of experiments, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), an orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus), and human infants (Homo sapiens) were investigated as to whether they used experimenter-given cues when responding to object-choice tasks. Five conditions were used in different phases: the experimenter tapping on the correct object, gazing plus pointing, gazing closely, gazing alone, and glancing without head orientation. The 3 subject species were able to use all of the experimenter-given cues, in contrast to previous reports of limited use of such cues by monkeys. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Token transfers among great apes (Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pygmaeus, Pan paniscus, and Pan troglodytes): Species differences, gestural requests, and reciprocal exchange.

Great apes appear to be the nonhuman primates most capable of recognizing trading opportunities and engaging in transfers of commodities with conspecifics. Spontaneous exchange of goods between them has not yet been reported. We tested gorillas (Gorilla gorilla), orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), bonobos (Pan paniscus), and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in a token-exchange task involving two conspecifics and a human experimenter. Tested in pairs, subjects had to exchange tokens with a partner to obtain food from the experimenter. We observed 4, 5, 264, and 328 transfers of tokens in gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and bonobos, respectively. Most gifts were indirect in gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos, whereas most were direct in orangutans. The analysis showed no evidence of calculated reciprocity in interactions. A main finding of the study was the high rate of repeated gifts and begging gestures recorded in orangutans. This raises the question of the meaning of pointing in great apes and their ability to understand the communicative intent of others. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Learning from others' mistakes? Limits on understanding a trap-tube task by young chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens).

A trap-tube task was used to determine whether chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens) who observed a model's errors and successes could master the task in fewer trials than those who saw only successes. Two- to 7-year-old chimpanzees and 3- to 4-year-old children did not benefit from observing errors and found the task difficult. Two of the 6 chimpanzees developed a successful anticipatory strategy but showed no evidence of representing the core causal relations involved in trapping. Three- to 4-year-old children showed a similar limitation and tended to copy the actions of the demonstrator, irrespective of their causal relevance. Five- to 6-year-old children were able to master the task but did not appear to be influenced by social learning or benefit from observing errors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Gravity and solidity in four great ape species (Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pygmaeus, Pan troglodytes, Pan paniscus): Vertical and horizontal variations of the table task.

Three experiments modeled after infant studies were run on four great ape species (Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pygmaeus, Pan troglodytes, Pan paniscus) to investigate their reasoning about solidity and gravity constraints. The aims were: (a) to find out if great apes are subject to gravity biased search or display sensitivity for object solidity, (b) to check for species differences, and (c) to assess if a gravity hypothesis or more parsimonious explanations best account for failures observed. Results indicate that great apes, unlike monkeys, show no reliable gravity bias, that ape species slightly differ in terms of their performance, and that the errors made are best explained by a gravity account. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Distinguishing logic from association in the solution of an invisible displacement task by children (Homo sapiens) and dogs (Canis familiaris): Using negation of disjunction.

Prior research on the ability to solve the Piagetian invisible displacement task has focused on prerequisite representational capacity. This study examines the additional prerequisite of deduction. As in other tasks (e.g., conservation and transitivity), it is difficult to distinguish between behavior that reflects logical inference from behavior that reflects associative generalization. Using the role of negation in logic whereby negative feedback about one belief increases the certainty of another (e.g., a disjunctive syllogism), task-naive dogs (Canis familiaris; n?=?19) and 4- to 6-year-old children (Homo sapiens; n?=?24) were given a task wherein a desirable object was shown to have disappeared from a container after it had passed behind 3 separate screens. As predicted, children (as per logic of negated disjunction) tended to increase their speed of checking the 3rd screen after failing to find the object behind the first 2 screens, whereas dogs (as per associative extinction) tended to significantly decrease their speed of checking the 3rd screen after failing to find the object behind the first 2 screens. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)